There is no witch hunt after you. There is consideration that you're coming forward, but that consideration only goes so far. That does not mean that you automatically get what you want simply because you want it. If your arguments don't make sense, sorry, they don't make sense. If you're saying I'm being biased against you and discounting your arguments because it's you that's making them, then I can't do anything to change that, and I honestly don't care that you think that. That's your choice to make.

But I could care less who made the mistake and who is now making the argument. Obviously that's the case, I'm now discussing/debating/discoursing/some other D-Word with Archie from Riverdale. I'm trying to create a situation where it, regardless of whoever has done it, word to my man Chris Jericho, doesn't happen again because the ambiguity is gone. I'm using what happened here to better the situation. I'm against Arch's options B or C because changing doesn't make sense due to not clearing up any ambiguity or because we don't need to at this junction in time. We're going to be revisiting this in a few months anyway. If anything, the impatience being displayed here by multiple people is baffling. I'm not even touching any of the other displays, of which other people have noticed and commented on.

It's using you as a real example of it happening. That doesn't mean I'm biased against you. I'd be doing the same thing if it had been Cadden, Nich, Foxx, Tal, Archie, Omek, anyone, I don't care. I've used Omek as an example as well, here. I go with the best example. It just so happens that you're the one who did it (and created this thread), so you're the best example to use.

Out of the 3 instances of this happening since the rule was put into effect, the first was you (we talked about it on FB, issue resolved), the second time was Omek now, and the third was you, with you outing yourself. If I'm going to give real examples of this happening....what options do I have to work with? A hypothetical only gets me so far and is only so demonstrative.

Edit: You're not the only one who wants it, but you're the only one multiple posting on it. There are like back to back to back posts from you, in this thread. You're clearly the loudest voice.

Ffs, man, I'm not the only one here who broke the rule. There are at least two other people here who misinterpreted your version of the rule and also broke it but on every page you're focused entirely on me. There has been at least one mention of my name directly stated as your reason for being opposed to this change on almost every single page of this thread. How exactly is that supposed to look to me? Now I'm sitting here feeling like I just fucked it up for everyone else who wants this revision now and if we ultimately decide NOT to revise it then it would be entirely my fault.

Bro, me and Kev gotta combine our posts to top yours. Me, Cadd, Omek, and Archie have to combine in order to still only be 75. You're the loudest, strongest voice arguing for this, you're the one who started the thread, and the thread is started because of your actions. But you're surprised when all of that gets directly referenced and you think that that's targeting? Really?

People didn't misinterpret "my" version of the rule. They interpreted the rule a different way than I did. Who has the correct interpretation is up for debate.

You didn't mess anything up for any of them. If their arguments aren't strong enough, then they're not strong enough. That has nothing to do with you.

The only real issue here is how to interpret the Rule of Two. Obviously, you and Nich has one interpretation, while pretty much everyone else has a second interpretation. I'd say that calls for a vote of some kind, if only to clarify how the majority interprets that rule.

Now, make it so.*

* = Yes I know it is a Star Trek reference. Sue me.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins
From madness comes wisdom, and from wisdom comes power.
"I'm convinced you're secretly a British Spy" - Mir

heyyyyyy. My point stands. Can't be posting up 30 times more than the next highest guy and then ask why does it seem that there are people who mention you a lot. But anyway.

If there's a discrepancy, fine, but we need to finalize what the options are for the new definition are, yes? If so, then we need to discuss them. Which is what we're doing now. See Arch's most recent post and my response.

You know, I never read Archie comics, and I always assumed they were on the comedic side of comics, but all the ads I see for Riverdale make it look like a horror show.

I don't really get that.

Pryde, as a one-time moderator to another one-time moderator, I'm going to ask you to step back for a day or two. Halomek and I know where you stand (I think most of us do) and we can talk about this for the time-being. Feel free to jump back in when you can be more focused on a resolution to this problem or when we're about to do something you absolutely hate, whichever comes first (hopefully the former). Mir isn't out to get you; he's not interested in upsetting you or shutting you down. He's trying to come to a resolution on this, same as the rest of us; he just happens to disagree with you.

I agree that we need to clarify the options better. And I agree that anything besides hard-nosed "only two characters, period" is going to be ambiguous and difficult. And I admit that I want a different interpretation because I want to continue my Forcer thread (in theory) before December. It's also the most straightforward interpretation (what a complete newbie might assume), but not the one we oldies might expect (because we're accustomed to a, "You're a good writer, you're not so restricted," kind of system).

And now it sounds like I'm arguing for interpretation A. But let me reword the others for more clarity.

By "one or more threads," I meant >= 1. The crux of that clause is more about "development" than anything. To me, this is pretty clear, but it isn't to everyone. So let's start from the top. Generally speaking, I mean a "main character" in the sense of perspective. Characters whose perspective we follow are "main" or "major," whereas characters who merely interact with our perspective are "side" or "background." Of course, you could get around this by having a team of characters and only providing the perspective of one of them, so how do we apply the rule in that situation? We rely on "development." Development, I think, should be the fallback, not the primary--because all characters develop for as long as they're used, if they're used well. So the criteria for rule violation in option B is:

(1) How many total characters does a writer have that are Forcers?
(2) How many of those characters hold perspective in at least one incomplete thread? If >2, rule = broken!
(3) How many of the total number of Forcer characters have shown depth/development/growth over the course of at least one thread? If >2, rule = broken!
Otherwise, the rule isn't broken.

For option C, I intentionally wrote "actively and purposefully." One actively uses the Force when flying or fighting or throwing stuff. One passively uses the Force when receiving visions or precognition. One purposefully uses the Force when reacting to visions and precognition (e.g., to avoid or achieve a desired end), or when using Force powers (because there is inherent intentionality there). One uses the Force without purpose when one's abilities are enhanced without their awareness. So the criteria for rule violation in option C is:

(1) How many total characters does a writer have that are Forcers?
(2) How many of those characters are using the Force actively (powers, abilities, enhancements)?
(3) How many of those characters are using the Force purposefully (with awareness or intent)? If >2, rule = broken!
Otherwise, the rule isn't broken.

I like B because it suits my purposes, but as far as enforcing the rule goes, I prefer C because it's more straightforward. (And obviously, the criterion for option A is just question 1, if >2, broken.)

And all of these depend on a certain willingness to follow the rules, whatever they are; even if plans change and characters look to become more central, that would mean retiring someone else, or waiting for a thread to finish, before carrying on with the new main character. Patience is key with whatever option we have.

Frankly, I don't think Episode VIII will have much in the way of exposition (that is, not in the direction we want). Disney's vested interest for filmmaking is (1) explain the original movies with more movies from that era, and (2) tell a new story. It behooves them in this effort to eliminate Jedi in the interim, so it's as boring as possible. So post Ep.8 or maybe 9, Forcers will make a comeback, but between 6 and 7? Not likely. "The Last Jedi" title reinforces this. So if we want Forcers in the Exodus Galaxy that aren't all mere Sensitives with no powers and no means of training, we're going to have to depart from Disney's canon. I'm not saying we do this today, but if we increase the number of allowed characters come December, I seriously doubt we'll be matching canon at that point. So I'm happy to be patient, since we all agreed to be, but I don't see the number of Forcers going up drastically pre-8/9.

But I'm digressing. The point is that options B and C can be codified, C more easily than B, but neither so easily as A.

Archangel wrote: So if we want Forcers in the Exodus Galaxy that aren't all mere Sensitives with no powers and no means of training, we're going to have to depart from Disney's canon.

Again, there is no difference between a Force User and a Force Sensitive, that pretty much has been established. Everyone has the Force "surrounding them and binding them", but you have to have the proper amount of MCs to actually be able to use the powers. I think 'this' point of contention needs to be the first thing that needs to be cleared up and clarified so that their can no longer be any uncertainty about it.

Again I state, the 'entire' purpose of creating the new forum was to be more in line with the new canon, and not to 'depart' from it drastically...at this time. Meaning a limit to Force Sensitives that can actually use the Force's abilities. If we are going to depart from the canon this soon, and not have the patience to wait and see...then the new forum serves no purpose, and we might as well just move back to the old MBT.

Like I said, I'm not suggesting we depart from canon now. I'm just saying that we all agreed to this on the premise of reexamining it with Episode 8, and now we're all acting like Episode 8 will suddenly give us more Forcers. I doubt that. It's a warning based on my analysis of Disney's behavior, not a declaration of intent.

Nichalus wrote:Again, there is no difference between a Force User and a Force Sensitive, that pretty much has been established. Everyone has the Force "surrounding them and binding them", but you have to have the proper amount of MCs to actually be able to use the powers. I think 'this' point of contention needs to be the first thing that needs to be cleared up and clarified so that their can no longer be any uncertainty about it.

That has absolutely not been established to my satisfaction, but the point in my using those terms is that most people understand them, and of course I meant to distinguish between someone who can use the Force and someone who does.

And I don't think we need to spend any more time on the "capable" versus "active" Forcer question. That question is only relevant if we take Option C, and then only if we don't use my very simple criteria for determining the appropriate distinctions. If we take Option A, we assume that capacity (as soon as it is established by some means) counts against us, and anyone with >2 characters with the capacity to use the Force is breaking the rule. (Likewise, all Force-capable characters count against us in Option B, at least at first.) This question is also the major point of contention that's giving everyone a headache.

Dear fellow writers: if you want Force-capable characters who don't count against you, just talk about how lucky they are, now about how the Force did stuff for them. Easy peasy.

Definitely on the comedic side of comics. Archie Andrews is also a red head who wears sweater vests. But I like variety in my nicknames. The day I successfully and truthfully get away with “Kevie-poo” is the day I retire from nicknames.

Option B:
I got the >=1 thread concept. If the crux is about development, we’re still running into the side character becomes a main character issue. I also get the perspective of the post argument. But I can have multiple posts from Asha’s perspective, for example in the Journey Begins thread, even though the entire Journey Begins thread itself is about Jaina. Does that elevate her beyond “side” or “background”? I mean, if you take a look at the Fantastic Five thread prior to the Wedding thread, multiple posts are from multiple characters POV. In fact, the last 6 posts intentionally pattern: Emma, Carly, Ben, Emma, Carly, Ben, because I have a tendency to only focus on Paul Matthews. He is the main character of the group and the family.

I agree that development is the fallback because I think people are going to get stopped by Step 2. Assume: Akain, Tone, Sona. Akain and Tone are in one thread, and Sona is in another. As soon as someone scans through the T1 with Akain and Tone, Mir has hit the limit of his 2. We move to T2 with Sona. Bam. I’ve violated. What’s the point of Step 3?

Option B is window dressing on Option A. Unless everyone ONLY has their 3rd Forcer or beyond be side characters and never develop them.

Moving to Option C:
While Option C is more straightforward when it comes to enforcement, it also is the most restrictive writing wise, to me. Weird, I know, because I’m in favor of Option A. But Option C is Option A+ to me. You get your two forcers, and then there’s a big, huge restriction on everyone after that. They all have to be using the Force accidentally/without awareness or intent. If the purpose of all of this happening is because some people felt that the opaqueness of the rule hinders their creativity and “story trumps all” is a version of the motto, how is Option C actually benefitting them? They’re pigeonholed as opposed to just not having the option at all and not having to be bothered by being pigeonholed.

Also this applies to both: Plans change response: Since I’m not exactly thrilled with the lack of patience already shown through this thread, I’m not that optimistic that I’m not going to have to be having this argument or some new variation of it in a short amount of time. We didn’t even hit the halfway point of Apr 2016 to December 2017.

Option B:
Suppose Akain and Tone were your only two. But you needed a bad guy, someone for them to fight. So, lacking another player who wants to give up one of their 2 to be your bad guy, you create Darthicus Badguyicus, a loan from the Road Runner/Star Wars crossover that needs to happen just because of all the fake Latin names. He doesn't actually do much aside from annoy Akain and Tone, and we never see things from his perspective. He just shows up, kills some unimportant people, and runs away, a convenient Mcguffin villain. Under option B, you're able to do this. Under option A, you're not.

Option C:
Option C basically assumes that someday we'll lift the ban, or at least raise the number. Under option C, you can develop Akain and Tone as Force adepts, learning powers and doing crazy crap. And then you can have Sona be like, "Whaaaaaat? Why did I have that weird vision? What's going on? Whaaaaaaaat? That vision came true?!" so that, once December rolls around and we raise the number for no reason (because Disney's canon won't give us one), Sona can become your 3rd of, I dunno, 5.

If we're never going to raise the number or lift the ban, then I agree, option C is much worse than option A, with the rare exception (like Hirai, who's never ever ever going to develop her latent Force abilities).

Re: patience. I agree that option A is the best for encouraging patience. Because suddenly Darthicus Badguyicus is so badass that you want to start writing what he's doing when Akain and Tone can't see him. And it's some pretty badass stuff. But maybe there's a reason he chose the name Badguyicus, and maybe he secretly has a heart. And maybe Sona's abilities start growing faster than you originally planned (maybe because Badguyicus showed up over there too and now she wants to train so she can kick his butt just as hard as Akain and Tone will). And maybe, even worse, we stick to our guns and don't depart from Disney's canon in December and we actually lower the number, because we're that hardcore, and we force everybody to pick a Forcer to be kidnapped by the Xen'Chi or killed.

On an unrelated note, purely for the sake of my comedic timing, we need strikethrough tags, and I don't know why we don't have them in phpBB3, because I've seen them elsewhere.

At any rate, I still prefer option B, but option C is still easier to enforce, and option A is the easiest to keep in place until the rule is changed, even though it makes everyone sad.

Mir wrote:Option B:
I got the >=1 thread concept. If the crux is about development, we’re still running into the side character becomes a main character issue. I also get the perspective of the post argument. But I can have multiple posts from Asha’s perspective, for example in the Journey Begins thread, even though the entire Journey Begins thread itself is about Jaina. Does that elevate her beyond “side” or “background”? I mean, if you take a look at the Fantastic Five thread prior to the Wedding thread, multiple posts are from multiple characters POV. In fact, the last 6 posts intentionally pattern: Emma, Carly, Ben, Emma, Carly, Ben, because I have a tendency to only focus on Paul Matthews. He is the main character of the group and the family.

Gods you are thinking way too hard about this. I know who my main characters are, I can even list them off for you; Felicity, Jess, Hirai, Isis, Gabriel, Ruby, Micaiah, Serenity and Faye and of these characters Jess and Felicity are my designated Forcers. The person who was supposed to instruct Felicity was not a main character. The person who was supposed to fight Jess is not a main character. Those nine people above are the people I want to focus on and the last thing I want to do is fill my roster with a bunch of people who are never going to get used like I did with my legends content. Hell, it's already starting to happen. I still haven't put Faye in a thread yet and the thread with Gabriel and his crew keeps dying before they actually go anywhere. ><

Point is, the question about whether or not this is a main character doesn't have to be that difficult.

Nichalus wrote:Again, there is no difference between a Force User and a Force Sensitive, that pretty much has been established. Everyone has the Force "surrounding them and binding them", but you have to have the proper amount of MCs to actually be able to use the powers. I think 'this' point of contention needs to be the first thing that needs to be cleared up and clarified so that their can no longer be any uncertainty about it.

That has absolutely not been established to my satisfaction, but the point in my using those terms is that most people understand them, and of course I meant to distinguish between someone who can use the Force and someone who does.

I feel the same way as Arch.

I am in favour of Option C, personally.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins
From madness comes wisdom, and from wisdom comes power.
"I'm convinced you're secretly a British Spy" - Mir

Near as I can tell it's only established in a single line on Wookieepedia with zero elaboration or explanation. There isn't even a notation listing which book it came from and I can't find any other sources to corroborate online.

Honestly, I'm surprised it was Tav, of all characters, that sparked this thing. The whole point of Tav being Force-sensitive is that he doesn't want to learn how to use the Force. He purposely squanders his connection because he doesn't want that kind of responsibility and is also afraid of what would happen if he fell to the Dark Side.

The whole bit about him having the gift is mostly just flavor text and I write him as if he doesn't have it unless a character specifically points it out to him. Hell, he doesn't even know he has it in the new canon and there's been no mention of it in the thread. That's why I deleted that part from his new wiki entry – because it's that irrelevant.

Anyway...

We don't have to take Arch's suggestions verbatim. We can find one we like as a starting point and tweak it to everyone's satisfaction.

I'm in favor of something like a mix of options B and C myself.

So something like this:

-----------------

Each member has a limit of two main characters who can use the Force or are Force-sensitive. Main characters are defined as those that members intend to use in more than one thread and are often, or always, written from the point of view of that character.

Side characters (this includes villains) that use the Force are allowed but must be rare and not overpowered. If a member would like one of these side characters to appear in a thread created by another member, they must consult the Story Coordinator and the other members of the thread first. Each instance will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

A side character cannot become a main character if the member limit of two has already been reached. Any side character that ends up fitting the criteria of a main character after the limit has been reached will be a violation of this rule and the writer will have to cease writing them that way immediately.

This rule may be revised later as we get more information on the new canon.

--------------------

It's a lot more wordy than Arch's suggestions, but I think it covers most of the concerns people are having. It's specific enough to get the point across, but also gives some wiggle room for developing stories. Like I said earlier, if the idea is to aggressively enforce this rule, then it needs to be clear from the start just what everything means.

Feel free to dissect it or add on to it if I missed anything.

When life gives you lemons, you clone those lemons and make super lemons!

Halomek wrote:
Each member has a limit of two main characters who can use the Force or are Force-sensitive. Main characters are defined as those that members intend to use in more than one thread and are often, or always, written from the point of view of that character.

Here is where you are going to run into a problem Hal. Some members want to have characters that 'use' the Force, but don't know their using the Force, such as visions, pre-cognition, enhanced reflexes ...or as some have put it "Luck=The Force".

What catagory will those fit in, since others will see that as 'not' using the Force, because if their character doesn't know they are using it, then they can't be dubbed Force Sensitive/User?

Halomek wrote:
Each member has a limit of two main characters who can use the Force or are Force-sensitive. Main characters are defined as those that members intend to use in more than one thread and are often, or always, written from the point of view of that character.

Here is where you are going to run into a problem Hal. Some members want to have characters that 'use' the Force, but don't know their using the Force, such as visions, pre-cognition, enhanced reflexes ...or as some have put it "Luck=The Force".

What catagory will those fit in, since others will see that as 'not' using the Force, because if their character doesn't know they are using it, then they can't be dubbed Force Sensitive/User?

Not "used" the Force but more like the Force "used" them. Part of the point I was trying to make is that it's a two way street. The Force has a will, several characters in canon seem to think so and "use" isn't exactly the right word. I'm talking like say I'm down on my luck and I need some money to pay off a debt or something. I pray to god (or in this case the Force) to show me a sign and someone bumps into me, that's when I see the help wanted sign across the street. Did god (or the Force) actually answer my prayer? Who knows, but it was exactly what I needed when I needed it. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. That critical moment when everything's on the line and one thing absolutely has to go right and it does. One character might say it was the Force, another might say it was luck and both are probably right. There's a certain spirituality to the Force that's going to be left out completely if we decide to limit these kinds of experiences to just Force Users and since the Force is what makes Star Wars so unique I feel like limiting its effect on the universe (or trying to quantify it with things like midichlorians) is sort of missing the point. I mean as an example Rogue One is a movie with zero Force powers in it, but when you watch it you wouldn't say that the Force is completely absent from the film. At least I didn't feel like it was, I felt like the Force was very much present throughout the whole thing.

Well, it's impossible to cover everything. As Arch pointed out, if a member really wanted to, they could easily work around the rule by virtue of not mentioning the Force as the source of a character's luck or skill until such time as the limit is opened up. Nothing really to be done about that. We can't second-guess everybody's intentions because all that does is turn the board into a police state and suck all the fun out of the forum. At some point we just have to trust our members to be responsible with how they handle their characters. As long as the intent of the rule is clear, that should be enough. Just focus on catching the blatant violators.

As for limits to the side characters, I would again chalk that up to trusting our members. I understand the concern though. You could always add a provision that forbids creating or using large numbers of Force-using side characters in any one thread. That way, even if a member has a lot of Force-using side characters they could potentially use, they'll still be scarce in the threads themselves. It is a big galaxy after all.

Again, it's totally open to suggestions if someone has another idea.

When life gives you lemons, you clone those lemons and make super lemons!

I don't know why you've attached so much importance to this equation of "Force sensitive" and "Force user," but it's baffling to me. We can talk about midichlorian counts all you want, I guess, but that's not the point of the distinction. The point is that some people use the Force actively ("Force user," "Force wielder," "Forcer," "Jedi," "Sith," etc.) and some people just can, but don't know that they can or don't know how ("Force-sensitive," "Force-capable," etc.).

So when Halomek, in his proposal, said, "Each member has a limit of two main characters who can use the Force or are Force-sensitive," that limits both categories at the same time.

That is, in the descriptions I was using earlier, anyone receiving precognition, visions, etc., without actively seeking them out, is Force-sensitive. They're sensitive... to the Force... but they're not really using it. Anyone performing Force powers or training as a Jedi is a Force user. Because they use the Force. Midichlorian count doesn't matter. What matters is the story structure and semantic categorization. All Force users are Force-sensitive, but not all Force-sensitive characters are Force users. Whales and mammals. Squares and rectangles. Venn diagrams and diagrams.

And all the characters I just described would be limited, under Halomek's proposal. The characters that are unlimited are your Han Solos, your Boba Fetts, people who genuinely have skill (and possibly luck, regardless of Obi-Wan's opinions on the matter) to achieve their ends. Now, granted, any good writer can get around that restriction easily enough. The letter of the law is very easy to obey. I think we're all decent enough people that we don't have to watch out for someone sneaking around, pretending that their Sith Lord isn't really a Force user. And of course we still need to watch out for each other, because Mir can't read everything, and we do (for now) want the Exodus Galaxy to resemble the galaxy at the time of Episode 7 (or shortly before).

A limit on side characters seems reasonable. I like side-characters-per-thread; it's unlikely people will generally have side-Forcers in threads without their main Forcers, and they can only have two of those max.

I wrote a post last night and thought I’d posted it, but evidently it didn’t work. Things have moved on since then but my points were:

I was wrong about canon, it’s been 4 years or so since Disney acquired Lucasfilm, and in that time they’ve created a really boring stale universe compared to the old one. Their writers are clearly limited in what they are allowed to touch upon and create. I had high hopes for the expanded stuff but it all seems to be filler for the movies. However that is I admit a personal opinion.

Also it was mentioned that people are being impatient in not waiting for the rule to be reviewed, but when the most active thread on the board is being held up because it’s in breach of those rules then aren’t we cutting our noses off to spite our face? Surely we want active threads? Gods know I’m rubbish at posting but I do love to read other peoples stuff.

And my final point was, so long as we don’t actively contradict anything in canon and allow ourselves potential wiggle room for the future, why does it matter if a writer has more than two Forcer Users?

If I write a thread where three Jedi barge into the Republic senate and declare they are restoring the Jedi Order then that would seem to be in breach of canon and a Mod should step in.

If I write a thread where a secret order of Forcer user assassins go about the galaxy quietly executing their business, then please prove to me that what I’m Rping is in breach of canon and could not possibly fit in to the new universe.

I say scrap the rule, and simply enforce that we don’t specifically contradict canon. Surely we can trust few people who do write here at this stage?

Halomek wrote:
Each member has a limit of two main characters who can use the Force or are Force-sensitive. Main characters are defined as those that members intend to use in more than one thread and are often, or always, written from the point of view of that character.

Side characters (this includes villains) that use the Force are allowed but must be rare and not overpowered. If a member would like one of these side characters to appear in a thread created by another member, they must consult the Story Coordinator and the other members of the thread first. Each instance will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

A side character cannot become a main character if the member limit of two has already been reached. Any side character that ends up fitting the criteria of a main character after the limit has been reached will be a violation of this rule and the writer will have to cease writing them that way immediately.

This rule may be revised later as we get more information on the new canon.

Define "consult".

Would Side characters then be able to transfer around creator-created threads and the only time I have to get involved is when they move to a non-creator-created thread? Taking Altered Legacies for example, I don't think it accidental that Pryde started writing in the thread. I find it hard to believe that you were planning on writing it by yourself and Pryde asked to join.

Personally, I want less "control" in the hands of the Story Coordinator, especially since I don't want to have to be scanning threads to look for rule breaks. We decided that people weren't going to talk to me before introducing previously canon things that are no longer canon. Such as if someone wanted to introduce the E-Wing or the K-Wing. If that's the standard for old canon elements, I'd like to keep that for everything. One of the reasons why I like hard and fast rules because then everyone knows what they're supposed to be doing. Case in point, the only two times I've brought something up to people regarding the Forcer situation were due to reading updates on the wiki, not from reading threads.

I like reading people's work (except for Jag's) with the intent of enjoying myself. I like reading Jag's work to send him things like "less dialogue. more exposition. I hate you."

Mir wrote:Would Side characters then be able to transfer around creator-created threads and the only time I have to get involved is when they move to a non-creator-created thread? Taking Altered Legacies for example, I don't think it accidental that Pryde started writing in the thread. I find it hard to believe that you were planning on writing it by yourself and Pryde asked to join.

Yes, Halo invited me and yes the revisions to my character came after her initial participation in the thread as we were trying to figure out how she fit into the Molariou family and why neither Habas or Clara know of her. I even said as much on the talk page of her Wiki. Most of her backstory was input from Halo. Still, I don't see how any of that has any bearing on this. It wasn't my intent to write her using Force powers and if that changes then it won't be changing until after December, assuming the rule is lifted or the limit increased. Either way, I won't be going through this again. This whole ordeal has been incredibly frustrating and physically draining for me.

Pryde wrote:Yes, Halo invited me and yes the revisions to my character came after her initial participation in the thread as we were trying to figure out how she fit into the Molariou family and why neither Habas or Clara know of her. I even said as much on the talk page of her Wiki. [...] Still, I don't see how any of that has any bearing on this. It wasn't my intent to write her using Force powers[.]

That's my entire point behind Plans change. This happened because plans changed, so what's to stop plans changing from happening to someone else in the future? Even if we went with Halomek's proposal, I'm not sure if it would cover what happened in this instance, which to me, defeats the purpose of revising this, if we're not even going to take into account what kickstarted this to begin with. I'm trying to find something that's as accommodating as possible without disregarding the point of creating the new forum.

Tal, I'd be fine getting rid of the rule altogether too, but some people aren't, so I'm looking for a compromise that everyone can agree with.

Mir wrote:Personally, I want less "control" in the hands of the Story Coordinator, especially since I don't want to have to be scanning threads to look for rule breaks. We decided that people weren't going to talk to me before introducing previously canon things that are no longer canon. Such as if someone wanted to introduce the E-Wing or the K-Wing. If that's the standard for old canon elements, I'd like to keep that for everything. One of the reasons why I like hard and fast rules because then everyone knows what they're supposed to be doing. Case in point, the only two times I've brought something up to people regarding the Forcer situation were due to reading updates on the wiki, not from reading threads.

Sounds good to me, Mir. I only put that in there because it seems like more emphasis is being placed on the Story Coordinator role in the new forum. I'm more than happy to just say:

If a member would like one of these Force-using side characters to appear in a thread created by another member, they must consult the other members of the thread first, either by private message or through an OOC thread.

When life gives you lemons, you clone those lemons and make super lemons!

Pryde wrote: All I did was change a single word on her Wiki from no to yes. Nothing else about the character itself was going to change.

Pryde wrote:[Y]es the revisions to my character came after her initial participation in the thread[.]

Pryde wrote: As I said the character in question was not originally meant to be Force Sensitive but became such as it was necessary for the story.

Pryde wrote: I didn't decide to make Hirai force sensitive just so I can have another Jedi, I made her force sensitive because it was INTEGRAL to the plot[.]

Pryde wrote: As I have said and keep saying I only made her Force Sensitive because it was necessary for the story[.]

Step 1: Hirai is NOT Force Sensitive and is in your mind. From all accounts, you do not PLAN on making her Force Sensitive.
Step 2: Hirai is NOT Force Sensitive and is in the Homecoming thread. From all accounts you do not PLAN on making her Force Sensitive.
Step 3: Hirai is NOT Force Sensitive and is now coming into the Altered Legacies thread. Now you want to CHANGE her to Force Sensitive to fit the thread.
Step 4: Hirai IS Force Sensitive and is now in the Altered Legacies thread.

Halomek wrote:Tal, I'd be fine getting rid of the rule altogether too, but some people aren't, so I'm looking for a compromise that everyone can agree with.

Mir wrote:Personally, I want less "control" in the hands of the Story Coordinator, especially since I don't want to have to be scanning threads to look for rule breaks. We decided that people weren't going to talk to me before introducing previously canon things that are no longer canon. Such as if someone wanted to introduce the E-Wing or the K-Wing. If that's the standard for old canon elements, I'd like to keep that for everything. One of the reasons why I like hard and fast rules because then everyone knows what they're supposed to be doing. Case in point, the only two times I've brought something up to people regarding the Forcer situation were due to reading updates on the wiki, not from reading threads.

Sounds good to me, Mir. I only put that in there because it seems like more emphasis is being placed on the Story Coordinator role in the new forum. I'm more than happy to just say:

If a member would like one of these Force-using side characters to appear in a thread created by another member, they must consult the other members of the thread first, either by private message or through an OOC thread.

I suppose this is something I can live with. My only concern is that defining the side character, to me, is rather ambiguous. We, as a group, generally don't go the George RR route of moving POVs each chapter here translated into post. Which in a sense means that it's almost impossible to quantify when a side character has had enough written from their POV to make the determination of "often, or always, written from the point of view of that character."

I will sometimes write from the perspective of a side character just to give a different take on the narrative, so yes, it can be ambiguous. I think as long as main characters are defined by intent to move from thread to thread and almost always written from their perspective, that should be enough. Everything else would fall into the realm of a side character.

Is there a chance a side character could become a main character in due time? Yes, of course. That's something we'll have to deal with if it comes up. It might even be moot if that situation ever occurs. It may be well past Episode 8 and we've already expanded the limit, or abolished it, before the first instance of it ever happens. Who knows? Regardless, I think it's something we'll recognize when it happens.

If you've got some suggestions to better define what a side character should be (or a main character for that matter), then share them by all means. This whole thing is flexible until we vote on it.

When life gives you lemons, you clone those lemons and make super lemons!

Totes busy this weekend sorry. Had a one weekend class and then Shaggy and I were trying to #RememberTheRumble.

I think it's difficult to set some hard and fast rules in this department. While I dislike using the phrasing, it is one of those situations where we'd (hopefully) know it when we see it. I don't know if I would factor in intent however. In these situations, intent is meaningless, the outcome is crucial. We're talking about times where, since we're of the mind to trust people and assume the best of people, that this would be happening negligently (horrible use of word, but accidentally doesn't get the job done for me).

And no, the whole thing isn't flexible until we vote on it. If that's the case, then we wouldn't be here right now.

I meant flexible on the new wording of the rule we're discussing. If someone has a better way to word it than what I've written, then all the better.

I agree that intent is hard to establish sometimes, but it does at least help to better define what a main character should be, IMO. If you really don't like it, I suppose we could make it simpler and phrase it thusly:

Main characters are defined as those that are often, or always, written from the point of view of that character.

When life gives you lemons, you clone those lemons and make super lemons!

At this point, when I think about it, I'd prefer to have more wording, so down the road we're not running into similar ambiguity analysis situations. Also, as it appears I'm the final person arguing opposition, either due to loss of interest or increased press of business for others, I'm not trying to stand in the way of others. We can go to a vote or some other decision making process if you wish.

Assuming everyone else is as well, here would be the final proposed new wording on the Rule of Two:

Each member has a limit of two main characters who can use the Force or are Force-sensitive. Main characters are defined as those that members intend to use in more than one thread and are often, or always, written from the point of view of that character.

Side characters (this includes villains) that use the Force are allowed but must be rare and not overpowered. If a member would like one of these Force-using side characters to appear in a thread created by another member, they must consult the other members of the thread first, either by private message or through an OOC thread.

A side character that uses the Force cannot become a main character if the member limit of two has already been reached. Any side character that ends up fitting the criteria of a main character after the limit has been reached will be a violation of this rule and the writer will have to cease writing them that way immediately.

This rule may be revised later as we get more information on the new canon.

When life gives you lemons, you clone those lemons and make super lemons!